ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



A 'revolution' in batteries

Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:20 PM by Alan Boyle


Nature Nanotechnology / Stanford
Photomicrographs show silicon nanowires before and
after charging (left and right, respectively).

If you've ever rushed to save your files before your laptop battery gave out, or scrambled to recharge your iPod, or wished out loud for the resurrection of the electric car ... relief is in sight.

Yet another battery breakthrough is on its way to market, taking its place alongside improved hybrid-electric vehicles, the promise of ultracapacitor systems and even better AA power cells. Next-generation batteries could well last several times as long as current power packs, thanks to nanotechnology.

"This idea will have a really high impact on battery technology," said Stanford chemist Yi Cui, who is the lead researcher behind a study appearing in this month's issue of Nature Nanotechnology. "This is really revolutionary."

The key innovation involves using silicon nanowires instead of the usual carbon to store energy in a lithium-ion battery's anode.

Silicon has more than 10 times as much charge capacity as carbon. If commercial batteries could live up to that performance level, you could theoretically be running your laptop for 20 to 40 hours straight rather than the typical two to four hours. An electric car could go 400 miles on a charge rather than 40 miles.

Of course, the reality is more complex than the theory. But more about that later. The first question is whether this technology is actually for real. If silicon is that good at storing electrical energy, why isn't it being used already?

That's where nanotechnology makes the difference: For years, engineers have been trying to harness silicon electrodes for battery applications. But the problem with silicon is that its volume bulks up by a factor of four when you add the lithium - and then shrinks by the same factor when power is extracted. That quickly pulverizes an electrode made of silicon film or particles, rendering the battery useless.

Cui and his colleagues took a different approach: They grew nanowires of silicon directly on a stainless-steel plate. Each wire was about 90 nanometers wide, or a thousandth of the width of the typical human hair. When the filaments were filled with lithium-ion power, they thickened up and lengthened into curls, like tiny spongeworms - but they retained their resiliency through dozens of power cycles.

"This idea really made these silicon materials possible to be used in battery technology," Cui said.

Challenges still lie ahead: First of all, Cui's team focused on retooling the anode, which is just one of the electrodes in a battery. To get the full tenfold improvement, Cui told me, "you would need to improve also the other electrode ... but with one electrode improvement, you can improve a lot already." For example, you could make the anode smaller, leaving more space for a bigger cathode.

Cui's team also found that there was a one-time capacity drain after the first charge. But that's no biggie. The nanowires' storage capacity was still about eight times higher than carbon, Cui said. "This won't prevent this technology from going forward," he said.

On the plus side, silicon-nanowire batteries wouldn't have to look like the battery bricks that are typically used in laptops or cell phones. "It's a fundamentally different structure from the current technology," Cui said. And that could result in batteries that are better-shaped to conform to the available space.

Cui said a patent application has been filed for the technology, and he's considering starting up a company to commercialize the concept. So when might silicon-nanowire batteries hit the market? "I'm thinking in the next three to five years," Cui said.

Some companies are already knocking on the lab door. Cui acknowledged that Tesla Motors, the company working on an all-electric sports car, is just one of the outfits expressing interest. "There are lots," Cui told me, "but it's better not to mention their names now."

To learn more about Cui's work, check out this interview at GM-Volt.com and this story in The Stanford Daily. In addition to Cui, the authors of the Nature Nanotechnology paper include Candace Chan, Halin Peng and Robert Huggins of Stanford University, Gao Liu of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Kevin McIlwrath and Xiao Feng Zhang of Hitachi High Technologies.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

These are the types of technologies we need to help us uncouple our society from foriegn oil. Good for them.
I'm wondering how fast the battery can be recharged. If it takes 10 times longer to recharge, the application is limited.
The trick with these sorts of innovations isn't merely coming up with the technology, but making it reliable and mass-produceable.  Still, we're long overdue for a major breakthrough in energy storage.

As for any theoretical reduction in petroleum consumption, don't forget that we have to generate the power to charge these batteries.  Even if you were to eliminate all gasoline consumption by private vehicles overnight, you'd just replace that with an increased demand on the nation's power grid.  The energy has to come from somewhere.
A battery that has the potential of 5 to 10 times the stroage capacity?? Feed those Lab Rats! This is just what this country needs to get back in the tech spotlight! Good work guys. I'm looking foward to getting some new U.S.A. Tech.
Very interesting article.  If someone were to combine this new battery technology with the new, highly efficient quantum dot solar panels, the world's power paradigm could begin to shift.  Such a shift could spur new investment and industry, propelling the world economy forward.  Again, a very interesting and optimistic article.  
Reduces need for foreign oil? Yes, but more importantly... reduces the need for oil... PERIOD. After the last World War, the US enjoyed a period of technological and intellectual growth unrivaled in it's previous history, and unmatched since (driven by many factors: our war victory and the ensueing economic optimism, the influx of German scientists, and the enormous military/aerospace industries that grew as a result). The modern energy/environmental landscape could provide this country with the inspriation it needs to once again fire up the resourcefulness and creativity of the American workforce... I'd like to imagine a future with no burned fossil fuels, one where the US is at the forefront of energy development... from batteries to fusion.
I wonder if this could be the tipping point for electric-powered aircraft?  Replacing the weight of fuel systems, combustion chambers, etc, with an electrical storage system that drives the fan blades may actually make economic sense now.  In addition, the noise reduction alone would make for safer flight paths and less congestion.
Wonderful! However, the research & development process should be pushed forward, covering both electrodes, considering the energy needs which we all face now. Perfect it commercialize it sooner.
While I'll agree that this is a step forward, you still have to rely on fossil fuels to charge these batteries.  It'll take more energy and hence, more money to charge a battery that theoretically holds 10x the charge.
J Quinlan -- That is a naive view.  How do you think these things are researched, built, and charged?  WITH OIL!!!
Who knows if this particular technology will eventually work in commercial applications but even if not, I love seeing this kind of research going on.

Right now we (the U.S.) have such a TREMENDOUS opportunity to take the lead in alternative energy and make a phased and orderly transition from dependency on foreign oil. No it's not going to happen overnight and there will likely always be a place for gas/diesel engines but with global demand for energy increasing, this is literally of strategic importance to our well-being as a nation. The fact that it's so poorly sponsored is almost criminal.

This is the equivalent of the space race for the mid 21st century and we haven't even found our running shoes.
This is a great article about reducing gas and oil needed for energy, but don't forget that we will still need oil to make plastics and lots of other materials that are in everyday products.
Hello, does anyone do research before they pop off about the energy to charge batteries coming from oil?   Oil only acounts for about 2% of electrical generation in USA, 50% from coal. Power companies detest using oil to make power. It is the last resort for peaking units since it is so expensive. Have any of you witnessed any wind farms going up recently? I work at a nuke plant which has new neighbors moving in- 266 wind generators at a megawatt a piece.  That is where your green electricity will come from.
I see no reason why we need to rely on fossil fuels to charge these batteries. We can use nuclear fuel or any other source. It does not have to be oil. Furthermore, keep in mind that if we burnt oil at near-100% efficiency (which we can at a large, carefully designed plant), and transmitted the energy to charge an electric car, we would get 100s of mile to the gallon burnt.
it all sounds like a good idea,as we can see the benefits clearly for applications of more energy,will the researchers and developers give a more overall evaluation of this technology before mass production of a potentially hazardous material?
WRONG! They will be charged off our electric grid which will have new nuclear reactors added to it.

As a side benefit, we'll be spending our energy dollars at home rather than sending them to terrorist breeding countries.

This is win - win!
Ironically, these kinds of things will, at first, have the peverse effect of INCREASING our dependence on foreign oil.  To wit: the domestic demand for oil will drop, lowering the price.  When the price drops, oil companies will stop buying from the most expensive producers first.  Guess where those are?  The Gulf of Mexico, west Texas, and Canadian oil sands.
Nonetheless, we need to get this kind of technology going anyway - unless you like breathing pollution.  Even the dirtiest coal plant (inside the US) can produce power more cleanly than the cleanest internal combustion engine.

solar and wind generators with an inverter and battery storage at home would eliminate or at least reduce the power grid use, also an onboard solar panel can charge your car while your at work. regenerative breaking into the new super capacitors will also reduce battery discharge when you accelerate, the batteries can only absorb power at a certain rate, overflow power can be stored quickly in a capacitor as well as quickly discharged into an electric motor reducing the load on the batteries during acceleration.  
Two points:
1)I agree that this is a step in the right direction and could help us to get off of the fossil fuel dependency.

2) While I agree that charging the batteries may initially depend upon fossil fuel generation, what's to stop the engineers from pairing up their batteries to solar cells, which could charge or trickle-charge the batteries? It's sort of short sighted to not see that this is a piece of the puzzle, rather than it being the goal in and of itself.
It's good to see this new technology. I'm sure it'll mature in time. I'm anxious to see if these new batteries hold as much charge as advertised? You still have to use energy to charge these so you borrow from peter to pay paul as far as the carbon game goes. I'm sure some folks will find an inventive way to use these.
Several years ago, Motorola developed and patented a methanol based, refillable fuel cell that would give a cell phone a one month talk time.  The same engineers took a sabbatical to develop the tech two or three times further.  This tech has completely disappeared as we still don't have a cell phone that lasts any decent length of time.  What happened to that tech?  Why can’t we seem to get anywhere with longer batteries.  Will history repeat itself with this silicon based battery?
What about reviving Buckminster Fuller's idea on a geodesic style national power grid? Feeding, electrical power from all sources increases the efficiency of the grid (or, mega-grid if you prefer). Even excess power from these batteries will do. Also, why cannot this new battery technology be used in solar arrays?
Lookout Duracell!
the technology is already here! its the oil companies that are putting road blocks in the way to prevent the loss of revenue going into their pockets! They pay politicians kickbacks to slow down legislation on alternate energy sources. But of course that has been a "NO BRAINER" for years! we need to get the politics out of Americas creativeness and allow free reign to those who can really take us into the future. If we don't the the rest of the world will pass us up and we will become a 3rd world country.
Chicago known as the windy city which would be just the right place to generate clean wind energy battery.just my humble suggestion.
I have to agree with Brent Duran.  If this technology become commercially available, we will be reducing our need for polluting fuels with combination of solar cells (as was mentioned) along with wind power and hydroelectric that allows fish to go upstream to spawn.  I would hope that all of the presidential candidates put federal research money to keep this going.  The current administration wouldn't think of it.  

These batteries could have applications for space travel as well.  They could serve as a back up when there is no light to run the facility if they use solar panels.  
Yeah... what we need is a wind powered battery.  You could just have a little propeller on all your devices... lol.
if the new batteries are used in cars, the should use the forward momentum of the car to recharge the batteries. we used to have dynamos on bicicle tires to produce the electrisety for the lights. even if 10%would get back in to the batterie,it would be good for 50 miles more.
The efficiency of creating energy from a power plant is maximum of about 60% the efficiency of an automobile is around 12%; thereore use of batteries should reduce the consumption of energy and total CO2 to the atmosphere substantially.  The US already has the infrastructure to provide the power as the power plants are underutilized during the night time when mose users would be charging their cars.  The only problem is that the exisitng infrastructure is primarily coal, and there is not enough coal production to take make up the gap if batteries became norm for automobiles.  Theanswer will be nuclear, wind and solar.  We have the technology to become 100% energy effiecient today, these developments will make it practical and affordable for everyone.
Battery technology is key to our mobility future. Charging vehicles at night when power demand dips will work great for the electric companies. I would like to see more options for vehicle conversions in the future. Today the one thing that has been keeping conversion kits from going mainstream is the current battery technology. Maybe this is what we have been waiting for.

Excellent. Yes, a piece in the puzzle. More efficient, less expensive solar panels + higher capacity batteries = less dependence on oil. In the event of an oil crisis, the only folks driving will have panels on their roof and batteries in their car.
1 Charge them up using solar power in the South
2 Transport them using battery powered semis

No oil.  No pollution.  No $100 oil.
All the nay-sayers honking about how it takes oil to generate electricity to charge the batteries need to do some basic research.  All the tech efforts currently going into bio-to-electric, as well as alternatives such as wind, geothermal, and yes, cleaner nuclear power make electric generation non-oil-dependent.  Anything we can do to cut our nursing at the oil breast is good.  This is just another step!  Keep up the good work!!!!

First, there is no 100% efficient energy generation.  Don't believe me?  Do a search for carnot cycle.

Second, solar and wind are great but they are intermittent and low grade.  Unless you want to use energy at the whim of nature, you have to have conventional power to back them up.  Dual build cost, dual maintenance cost.  Even here in Az where solar is plentiful the utility company charges twice the price for solar as conventional.  And when I priced out converting my home to solar it would have taken 15 years just to pay the capital cost, forget about the maintenance and battery costs.

The power source would have to be nuclear - 10000 year supply and high grade energy.

This is a great step in the right direction though.  A car that can do 100 miles between charges and that charges overnight could eliminate 80% of our commute gasoline consumption.

And the battery could be exchanged at the filling station for longer trips.
I can't see this reducing the amount of fossil fuel used unless electric cars etc. are constructed (and
BOUGHT more to the point) on a large scale. It will be decades before everyone has given up combustion engines in favour of electric cars. It's still a brilliant innovation though. Now the best way to cut out fossil fuels is with solar power, not wind turbines. If an area the size of Texas was filled with solar panels, it would generate enough energy to power the world. Wouldn't need much land area to power a country the size of island now. Plenty of ocean to build platforms on to, instead of oil rigs.
am I the only one that just thought about how much longer I'd be able to play my Gameboy in a single charge?
A car powered by these new batteries that could go 150-250 miles before requiring a recharge would almost eliminate the need for a back up gas engine to keep the batteries charged.  Few people drive over 200 miles in a normal day.

Coat the cars roof, hood & trunk surfaces with solar panels, along with braking generation/charging, and the cars max range could be greatly extended beyond what the battery alone could do.    

As to the electrical supply to charge them.  Concentrated solar, photo voltic solar, wind, damn type hydro, stream bottom hydro, tidal generators, wave generators, nuclear....biomass...ect.  A long list of upcoming electrical sources is rapidly being developed.  Oil would not be needed, though coal will be for many years yet.

To answer some questions: While rate of charge wasn't mentioned, the extraordinarily high surface area of the silicon nanowires should result in a very high power output and should support high power fast charging. Other LiIon batteries using nanoscale electrodes, such as from A123 and Altairnano, also support fast charging.

Reducing our oil demand will not cause an increase in oil imports. That argument isn't rational.

The methanol fuel cell is still under development, but is more expensive than LiIon batteries, and the methanol fuel costs more than electricity. To get a month of cell phone talk time would require a very large brick sized methanol tank, shrinking it to cell phone size would mean refilling with methanol every day - at a much higher cost than recharging batteries.

"Using the forward momentum of the car to recharge the batteries" is already being done, it is called "regenerative braking", it slows down the car as momentum is converted back into electricity. Regenerative braking is about 75% efficient, but that is better than standard friction brakes that are 0% efficient. No, we won't drive around with the regenerative brakes on all the time, that would reduce driving range and performance.

We won't ship batteries around for charging, it is much more efficient and cheaper to ship electrons by wire.

Covering a car with photocells is currently too expensive to be practical. Much better to set them on a roof facing the sun to get the maximun power from this expensive source. If solar technology improves and drops the price down really really cheap, then we might start seeing "solar painted" cars.
This type of battery improvement has the capacity to turn the whole automotive industry and help revie the US economy. A vast majority will be able to use the plug-in cars with increased range compared to what is possible now. The current 40 mile range of converted plug-ins is not sufficient. Increase that range to just 5 times, it will be useable by more than 95% of the population who go to work daily.

It is true that we might use carbon-based fuel in the various electric plant to power up these cars, but then those CO2 generating plants will become a point source which are easier to control. If gasoline or petrols were used by cars, the CO2 emissions would be everywhere and they cannot be captured easily. Whereas if those CO2 comes from power plants, they can be easily recaptured, like producing baking powder (http://www.news.com/Can-baking-soda-curb-global-warming/2100-13838_3-6220127.html?tag=nefd.lede), trapping in some rocks to solidify as limestone (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22506764/) , or can be used to enhance production of biodiesel from algal cultures where CO2 is recaptured, and still others that can convert CO2 into fuel building blocks by the use of catalysts, water and lots of concentrated sunshine (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418091932.htm). The point is that if CO2 emissions are pinpoint rather than scattered, it is easier to deal with. Besides, the conversion efficiencies of power plants are much better than internal combustion engines. And we don't need to literally use fossil fuels to generate electricity. We have alternatives that are cheaper than nuclear sources such as those solar thermal plants, wave, tidal, hydroelectric, underwater ocean or sea currents, geothermal, wind and biomass energy to name a few.

Commuting to work is one of the major producer of carbon dioxide. If these are replaced with electric cars that are zero emissions which will be possible with increased range, then it would be revolutionary if the price of these new batteries become affordable. The use of all zero emission vehicles for daily commuting would truly have dramatic impact on carbon emissions. At a good range of 400 miles, that would even include the out of town escapades and vacation. Imagine the Aptera vehicle that gets 120 miles to a charge, and could now be extended to 1,200 miles. Now I can commute to Canada from California without having to pay for blood oil.

Still another uses for these batteries would be for energy storage to even out the variabilities of wind, wave or solar energy.
Nuclear energy to generate electricity.  Electrical grid to distribute power.  Service station terminals to pump electricity into batteries (instead of gasoline, buy a volt, not a gallon). Build an automobile with a generator under the hood, powered by air-flow from the forward speed of the vehicle through a wind-tunnel effect to supply auxiliary power for lights, stereo, wipers, etc.
Great new breakthrough. I'm looking forward to my all-electric car already )whether it be a Volt or some other plugin) Other great points are decrease in the materials and energy used to create inferior batteries and the decrease in alkaline and spent rechargable batteries going into landfills and shipped to 3rd world recycling dumps.
Since nobody mentioned Nanosafe from Altairnano(Alti) I'll do it.
They produce the best existing Nanobattery in existence today.
http://altairnano.com/index.html
Charging an EV from the gird costs between 2 and 3 cents a mile (3 to 5 cents per km) while gas costs from 10 to 15 cents a mile .
Some great comments.  Everyone talks about the depandence on oil, which I have to agree, is something we all would like to reduce.  A battery, no matter how efficient, or how long it will hold and deliver the charge impressed on it, is still no more than a storage device.  A 100 KwHr battery will need 100 KwHr of power put into it, from any generation source available, be it a bicycle hooked to a generator to a nuclear reactor.  It is just a storage device and does not depend on oil, per say, to operate.  If these new batteries work at 10x the efficience, full funding and development should be provided to bring them to the commercial market, which will bring the overall price down, to where their end uses will be determined by all of the other free thinkers and expirmenters that have made this Great Nation what it is.  Able to solve our problems at the grass roots level.
People just do not understand the energy criss. We do not have an energy shortage. There is penty of oil, solar, wind, power avalable. There is a STORAGE problem, the only way we currently store large amounts of energy is in the form of refined oil.  IF I HAD A BATTERY THAT COULD STORE ALL THE SOLAR ENERGY CONVERTED TO ELECTRICITY from my rooftop. For a mear 30000 dollars us I could be self suficent from grid and all the oil my family uses for the rest of my life! But batterysn currently are not up the chalange. some people say that is to much but I spend 3000 a year on gass alone so the payback for a system that could store all the energy I produce would be worth it.
I've operated off grid for 4 years now, (3200 sq foot home all modern) and my batteries are in need of replacing.  Anyone familiar with hybrid alternative power systems understands that the batterys are the weak link in the system.  I could go from 3 days use of stored electricity, to a month.  I could then turn all my excess production into hydogen production for my new hybrid.  The future seems endless if only our government had any foresight.  No thanks to,  and no help from the  government, I'm living the green life.
VERY NICE!
I can only hope that like so many things have in the past this does not end up being manufactored in china, singapore, or some Central or South American country because of lower labor costs. I feel that to stimulate the economy we need to first of all get rid of the treaties like NAFTA and other "Open border treaties" that were supposed to help the economy instead of tanking it.  This idea while radical needs to be put into place very soon. Why you might ask? Simply because any researcher knows that with so many people focused on the field of energy storage there will be another break through in the field in short order.  Why not get a FLEXABLE manufactoring facility in place that will allow a "simple" change over as technology provides improvements?  Beleive me, the cost of building a flexible structure vs one that is designed to last in the same configuration is many times cheaper in the short and long run.  What does one mean when one says "flexible"?  Its very simple, one builds in extra capacitys in power supply capability, extra room to expand as the manufactoring needs and demands change and extra infrastructor in the building, the roads and utilities.  This will cost too much one would say, and my response would be that it cost less to put these expansion capabilities in when one first builds than it does five, ten or even 2 years down the road.  ALL cost to build increase with time, every firm will tell you this if you ask.  The initial outlay in capital would be expensive, the future gain in saved capital would be invaluable.  But that is another story.
If they could only find the material combination to create superconductors that work at room temps.Combine that with electricity and "PRESTO" no more need for fossil fuels. Those batteries would go a very very long way then indeed.
"Reducing our oil demand will not cause an increase in oil imports. That argument isn't rational."

Try to understand an argument before dismissing it.  That isn't what I said - it increases our dependence on imports, the reason being that domestic production will be the first to be shut off.  The actual quantity of imported oil would stay the same or drop a little, but the quantity of domestic oil produced would fall to nearly zero.  If we are importing 70% of our oil, and we reduce demand for oil by 30%, and the domestic oil is the most expenive, would we not then be importing 100% of our oil?


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=586070

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google